I wonder... does it follow then that buying local vegetables and eating them soon after buying them would - at least in theory - be more healthy? I would think veggies shipped a long distance to the grocery store would be more 'jet lagged', right?

Man, I love science. Especially when we use it to examine those little, innocuous things we all take for granted. I mean, vegetables are already pretty healthy, and now we may be able to make them healthier by adjusting the light cycles in our refrigerators? Who would've thought?

I wonder... does it follow then that buying local vegetables and eating them soon after buying them would - at least in theory - be more healthy? I would think veggies shipped a long distance to the grocery store would be more 'jet lagged', right?

Eating them soon after buying them would be more healthy, as the vegetables are still alive, producing these chemicals, and fighting off rot. Buying them locally does not necessarily mean anything, as the article made no mention of when the ideal time to cook food is, merely that there is variation over the daily cycle. It may well be ideal to cook your dinner at the time the plant thinks is sunrise.

And vegans don't like to kill, here is scientific proof that vegetables are alive, until cooked or eaten. No matter how you slice it. Humans kill to live - just like any other animal out there. It is a good thing we can learn morals or imagine the indiscriminate slaughter we would be capable of. (I guess if you look at history, you don't have to imagine very hard.)

Refrigerators of the future? I'm thinking more like the refirgerators of now, with the addition of a raspberry pi and full-spectrum LEDs.

Sadly, no LED will truly be full spectrum, just due to the nature of the device. Even with added phosphor conversion layers and recombinant ceramic packaging, LEDs still have defined peak emissions.

Better bet is targeted LED to encourage the production of these hormones and chemicals - terpenes and flavinoids will need blue/near-UV, most hormones are low-energy enough to be triggered and produced using red/far red light (which also is shown to control circadian rhythms.) The problem is getting these plants to generate this AFTER they've had their roots severed. Once there's no external source of nutrition, the plant will begin to cannibalize itself to attempt to repair damage or keep growing.

And vegans don't like to kill, here is scientific proof that vegetables are alive, until cooked or eaten. No matter how you slice it. Humans kill to live - just like any other animal out there. It is a good thing we can learn morals or imagine the indiscriminate slaughter we would be capable of. (I guess if you look at history, you don't have to imagine very hard.)

Perhaps our refrigerators shouldn't be dark just because we're not gazing longingly at their contents. Could we design 'fridge lighting specifically to trigger these metabolic responses? What wavelengths of light would be required? Perhaps some UV wavelengths? What "strength" of output (I don't know the photonic equivalent of amperage)? The ARS Technica summary implies by omission that the researchers didn't examine that. They really need to follow this up with spectral tests. It could be that all we need are some UV LEDs in our 'fridges; that would be an easy weekend Instructables project. Secondarily we might need to design 'fridges that make a tiny bit of certain core nutrients available to what we put in them so that this metabolic process doesn't cannibalize the produce so severely... little IV needles for our broccoli, tomatoes, and celery? Don't just dump your veggies in there and forget to plug them in!

Perhaps our refrigerators shouldn't be dark just because we're not gazing longingly at their contents. Could we design 'fridge lighting specifically to trigger these metabolic responses? What wavelengths of light would be required? Perhaps some UV wavelengths? What "strength" of output (I don't know the photonic equivalent of amperage)? The ARS Technica summary implies by omission that the researchers didn't examine that. They really need to follow this up with spectral tests. It could be that all we need are some UV LEDs in our 'fridges; that would be an easy weekend Instructables project. Secondarily we might need to design 'fridges that make a tiny bit of certain core nutrients available to what we put in them so that this metabolic process doesn't cannibalize the produce so severely... little IV needles for our broccoli, tomatoes, and celery? Don't just dump your veggies in there and forget to plug them in!

The same highly-efficient light wavelengths should be used - for flavorful oils and terpenes, you'll need blue from ~440nm to almost 290mn UVB (that UVB one is almost specifically for cannabis,) and for circadian rhythms you're going to be looking at ~640-680nm, plus if you can get it down, green light is overall more optimal for photosynthesis in that is has a higher quantum yield. (this is why HPS lights work so well despite a crappy output spectrum.) However this quantum yield happens when you get over ~300 umol photon flux density across the entire spectrum.

My best bet is to have a fridge that can be made to hold and grow plants after harvesting, to maintain nutritional content. Imagine a cold hydroponics system, if you will, except the roots are kept cold, while the rest of the plant continues to thrive in regular-temp conditions for maximum growth and nutrient absorption.

And vegans don't like to kill, here is scientific proof that vegetables are alive, until cooked or eaten. No matter how you slice it. Humans kill to live - just like any other animal out there. It is a good thing we can learn morals or imagine the indiscriminate slaughter we would be capable of. (I guess if you look at history, you don't have to imagine very hard.)

I don't know that the moral distinction most vegans are applying is "alive" vs "not alive". More likely it is "has a nervous system" vs "doesn't have a nervous system".

Virtually all of us draw distinctions at an arbitrary point to decide on moral grounds what we should eat and what we shouldn't. Most Americans won't eat primates, or pets. Some people just rule out eating other people. Cannibals usually at least don't eat close relatives. Going the other direction, personally I don't eat mammals (which is more about farming efficiency and not about the morality of killing per se). Vegetarians and vegans happen to go farther.

I respect anyone who gives the matter deliberate thought, decides on a principle, and sticks with it. Whether or not I happen to agree with what they chose. (Except cannibals. That's a step too far.) Most people never think about it, they just follow their gut reaction.

No need to comment on Rice when said research was done almost 30 years ago at University of Texas, Austin, as part of the USDA study on food decline over the years.

And yet you hold a staff position while you are fully unaware of prior research... How does this work, sir?

I think your humor sensor needs recalibration

I think the author needs to do some actual journalism before reporting on something so ancient as to be known from the 1970s and taught in 1990s horticultural sciences classes, yet I knew about around age 10 since I grew up on a farm/ranch.

Nobody's commenting on how all this research went on at Rice? Really, you people are disappointing me here.

and let's not forget that Rice is located in Houston... home of the world's largest... (wait for it)... LIVESTOCK shows (and rodeos). sure, they have a little section showing kids some of the processes that go on at a farm - tilling, planting, growing, harvest, sales... but the bulk of the space is animals. and no, it's not a petting zoo. well, there's concerts too, but they are almost completely independant events that happen to occur on the same grounds at the same time as the rest of the rodeo. you can buy tickets (and most people do) JUST for the concerts.

And vegans don't like to kill, here is scientific proof that vegetables are alive, until cooked or eaten. No matter how you slice it. Humans kill to live - just like any other animal out there. It is a good thing we can learn morals or imagine the indiscriminate slaughter we would be capable of. (I guess if you look at history, you don't have to imagine very hard.)

Refrigerators of the future? I'm thinking more like the refirgerators of now, with the addition of a raspberry pi and full-spectrum LEDs.

why bother with a pi when a simple lamp timer will do just fine, for a lot less, and a hell of a lot easier? if you wanna get real fancy with it, embed the timer into the side wall of the fridge, solder its leads to the fridge's own power input cord, and conceal all wiring inside the walls. you'll lose a little insulation in the process, but it's worth it... think of the kiddies veggies!

I wonder... does it follow then that buying local vegetables and eating them soon after buying them would - at least in theory - be more healthy? I would think veggies shipped a long distance to the grocery store would be more 'jet lagged', right?

The distance shipped might be less important than the time zone in which they were harvested, and how long it takes to reset "their" circadian clock

And vegans don't like to kill, here is scientific proof that vegetables are alive, until cooked or eaten. No matter how you slice it. Humans kill to live - just like any other animal out there. It is a good thing we can learn morals or imagine the indiscriminate slaughter we would be capable of. (I guess if you look at history, you don't have to imagine very hard.)

You're killing it, and eating it, but it's alright, because that's its intended purpose. Fruits and vegetables exist to be eaten, pass through the digestive system of organisms such as humans, and be excreted in a smelly pile of fertilizer. By the same right, cows and pigs only exist to be eaten. They did not exist in the wild before humans artificially selected them to their current form. As they exist only to serve as food, it's alright for Vegans to eat them.

There's also this article on using UV light to help strawberries keep longer in the fridge.

Quote:

Tests took place with one batch of strawberries placed in a dark refrigerator and another placed in a refrigerator exposed to UV-LEDs. The UV-treated berries had a significantly longer shelf life based on factors such as visible damage, mold growth, concentration of certain chemicals that naturally occur in fruit, weight and moisture content.

The UVB wavelengths proved especially effective in both blocking mold growth and preventing damaged areas of the strawberries from spreading. By comparison, UVC light blocked mold growth but worsened the existing damage on the strawberries.

On an barely related note, scientists have found they can create a large increase in the level of vitamin D2 in mushrooms by exposing them to intense bursts of UV light, post harvest, for just a few seconds.

The following source is a bit flaky; it took two or three attempts before I could get the PDF to download properly.

I wonder... does it follow then that buying local vegetables and eating them soon after buying them would - at least in theory - be more healthy? I would think veggies shipped a long distance to the grocery store would be more 'jet lagged', right?

I think this is a situation where the headline is unfortunately actively misleading. At least in the context of this research, actual time from harvest and/or transportation distance has nothing to do with it - it's all about light cycles.

That said, if the veggies sit around for long enough, they will eventually realize that they are dead, and stop metabolizing. Somewhere along that process, they will also wilt and become unattractive to eat.

Having said all of that, consider the implications of this finding, along with the fact (well established at least with some trees) that some plants produce these chemicals in response to actual predator pressure and/or damage, rather than on a light-driven cycle.If that mechanism is present in some of our food crops (which seems likely, though has not been documented as far as I know) then there would be real benefits to eating produce which was just picked in the last few hours. Of course, the only way to get food that fresh is to grow your own - a practice I highly recommend!

And vegans don't like to kill, here is scientific proof that vegetables are alive, until cooked or eaten. No matter how you slice it. Humans kill to live - just like any other animal out there. It is a good thing we can learn morals or imagine the indiscriminate slaughter we would be capable of. (I guess if you look at history, you don't have to imagine very hard.)

I don't know that the moral distinction most vegans are applying is "alive" vs "not alive". More likely it is "has a nervous system" vs "doesn't have a nervous system".

Virtually all of us draw distinctions at an arbitrary point to decide on moral grounds what we should eat and what we shouldn't. Most Americans won't eat primates, or pets. Some people just rule out eating other people. Cannibals usually at least don't eat close relatives. Going the other direction, personally I don't eat mammals (which is more about farming efficiency and not about the morality of killing per se). Vegetarians and vegans happen to go farther.

I respect anyone who gives the matter deliberate thought, decides on a principle, and sticks with it. Whether or not I happen to agree with what they chose. (Except cannibals. That's a step too far.) Most people never think about it, they just follow their gut reaction.

I appreciate your commitment to being a conscientious consumer, and your choice to forgo mammals for reasons of trophic efficiency and environmental impact. This is absolutely appropriate relative to CAFO-raised beef, which is the vast majority of the meat on the market.However, I would like to point out that it is possible to produce meat, including beef, in a low-input, low-impact fashion which actually exhibits a net environmental benefit. Not to argue with your decision; I just think this is cool and people should know about it.

Joel Salatin of Polyface farm is the most famous exemplar of this method, thanks to Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma but there are a few other producers (including some in California) who also use these methods. Here's a video of Salatin talking about his technique:http://www.homegrown.org/video/joel-salatin-on-grazing

The short summary: the farmer uses movable electric fence to keep the herd bunched up so that they graze intensively; and he moves them frequently, so they only graze any given piece of land briefly. This movement mimics the patterns exhibited by large herds of grazers in their natural environment. The benefit is that this grazing pattern encourages very rapid recovery/regrowth by the grass, which regenerates the pasture and sequesters carbon to the soil (via cyclic growth and dieback of roots). The upshot is that Salatin gets about 5 times the beef per acre of a conventional rangeland operation, with no fertilizer inputs and very little fossil energy use of any kind.

Hell, the French were studying this back in the 1930s - and there are probably studies going back further than that. They discovered the shelf life of fruit/veg lasted longer - as mankind has always known through observation - in a dark/dry/cool place And if it has access to carbon dioxide it lasts even longer, as its enzymes aren't feeding on itself creating an intracellular fermentation. There is nothing new under the sun, my friends.

I wonder... does it follow then that buying local vegetables and eating them soon after buying them would - at least in theory - be more healthy? I would think veggies shipped a long distance to the grocery store would be more 'jet lagged', right?

I think this is a situation where the headline is unfortunately actively misleading. At least in the context of this research, actual time from harvest and/or transportation distance has nothing to do with it - it's all about light cycles.

But if it's shipped in a container with no light for a long distance (i.e. a long stretch of time) that might screw up the rhythm's, no?

And vegans don't like to kill, here is scientific proof that vegetables are alive, until cooked or eaten. No matter how you slice it. Humans kill to live - just like any other animal out there. It is a good thing we can learn morals or imagine the indiscriminate slaughter we would be capable of. (I guess if you look at history, you don't have to imagine very hard.)

I don't know that the moral distinction most vegans are applying is "alive" vs "not alive". More likely it is "has a nervous system" vs "doesn't have a nervous system".

Virtually all of us draw distinctions at an arbitrary point to decide on moral grounds what we should eat and what we shouldn't. Most Americans won't eat primates, or pets. Some people just rule out eating other people. Cannibals usually at least don't eat close relatives. Going the other direction, personally I don't eat mammals (which is more about farming efficiency and not about the morality of killing per se). Vegetarians and vegans happen to go farther.

I respect anyone who gives the matter deliberate thought, decides on a principle, and sticks with it. Whether or not I happen to agree with what they chose. (Except cannibals. That's a step too far.) Most people never think about it, they just follow their gut reaction.

I appreciate your commitment to being a conscientious consumer, and your choice to forgo mammals for reasons of trophic efficiency and environmental impact. This is absolutely appropriate relative to CAFO-raised beef, which is the vast majority of the meat on the market.However, I would like to point out that it is possible to produce meat, including beef, in a low-input, low-impact fashion which actually exhibits a net environmental benefit. Not to argue with your decision; I just think this is cool and people should know about it.

Joel Salatin of Polyface farm is the most famous exemplar of this method, thanks to Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma but there are a few other producers (including some in California) who also use these methods. Here's a video of Salatin talking about his technique:http://www.homegrown.org/video/joel-salatin-on-grazing

The short summary: the farmer uses movable electric fence to keep the herd bunched up so that they graze intensively; and he moves them frequently, so they only graze any given piece of land briefly. This movement mimics the patterns exhibited by large herds of grazers in their natural environment. The benefit is that this grazing pattern encourages very rapid recovery/regrowth by the grass, which regenerates the pasture and sequesters carbon to the soil (via cyclic growth and dieback of roots). The upshot is that Salatin gets about 5 times the beef per acre of a conventional rangeland operation, with no fertilizer inputs and very little fossil energy use of any kind.

That's interesting. And actually there are other circumstances under which eating mammals is probably environmentally ok or even beneficial. E.g. wild caught venison in areas where the deer population is excessive. I suspect, though, that after several decades, it would take my digestive system some time to re-adapt, and I really don't miss it.